Monday, January 17, 2011

Inconvenient History's Joe Bishop Wants to Kill Jews

It is a self-evident truth that writers and ideologues often use looser language within a private setting than they would in public. For revisionist Joe Bishop, this looser language involved endorsing a call to kill all Jews, including children.

In October 2004, in one of his news updates about the progress of revisionism, Bradley Smith described a conversation he once had with associate Bill Wright. Smith regarded Wright as one of the revisionists who, although denying the existence of the exterminations, "feel a nostalgic loss over the fact that Hitler did not do, or even want to do, what he is accused of doing." Smith reported on part of their conversation:

Bill visited me when we were living in the San Joaquin Valley, in Visalia, California. He bought me a good lunch in a nice restaurant. We had a good talk. Talking with Bill is always interesting. Afterward we went to a park and sat at a picnic table beneath a tree. When the talk moved to the matter of the Jews, which it always does with Bill, his position was that all Jews should be killed. He is one of those revisionists who, while they understand that the gas-chamber stories are a historical fraud, feel a nostalgic loss over the fact that Hitler did not do, or even want to do, what he is accused of doing.

I wasn’t certain I heard Bill right, so I asked him what he meant.

“Do you mean all of them?”“All of them.”“The old folk? Jews you have never seen?Chinese Jews?”“That’s right, Bradley. It would be a better world.”“Howabout the babies?”“The babies too.”“But why the babies? What crimeshave the babies committed?”“They haven’t committed any crimes. But theywill grow up and be big Jews.”“So you want to kill the babies too?”“Yes, Bradley. The babies too.”

Smith purported to be so angry that he wanted to smash Bill's face. Their conversation quickly ended.

In response to this news update, which was critical of such a radical position, Smith received alot of letters. Among these letters was one from Joe Bishop, which Smith called "the most focused and unrelenting of the lot." That Bishop's letter surpassed all others in their message says alot in and of itself. Almost certainly without Bishop's knowledge, Smith quoted the letter in full in his following news update:

Hello Bradley, I read your latest newsletter (#4) and would like to make a couple of comments.

Actually this 'Bill Wright' is correct in all particulars. Bradley, you are outraged at the idea of someone killing Jewish babies. But are you outraged at the Jewish maxim 'even the best of the goyim must be killed!'? You want to smash 'Bill Wright' in the face. Would you want to smash in the face, a Jew calling for the genocide of non-Jews?

'Wright' is essentially talking about a global parasite, a disease, a virus or whatever, that if not destroyed will destroy all of us. And we are seeing the results of this parasite's work throughout the globe today, i.e. the failure to eliminate it at its earliest stages.

Wanting to smash 'Bill Wright' in the face kind of reflects your own approach to all this. Toleration for Jews and their crimes, intolerance for someone fed up with it all and wanting to take firm action against them.

You question the concept of 'tribal mentality'. What 'Wright' is referring to is the in-group / out-group mentality of collective Judaism, in which non-Jews are at the level of animals, livestock, suitable for exploitation and ultimately extermination. Non-Jews don't have that sort of mindset. This is a topic, in fact, that you ought to consider exploring and writing about.

You will no doubt continue to read at Bar Mitzvahs without understanding any of this, or at least pretending not to understand.

You say that revisionist theory is 'boring' to you and you admit that you read and study little on these topics. You ought to change all that and start learning from the 'Bill Wright's.

As always, I otherwise appreciate your work and perseverance. Your 'Break His Bones' was excellent, as also your earlier 'Confessions' and much else that you do.

Best,

Joseph.

So in this letter Bishop openly endorses Wright's position to kill all Jews ("correct in all particulars") and then goes on to defend it. For Bishop, the Jewish people serve as a "global parasite, a disease, a virus, or whatever" and must be destroyed/eliminated.

In his few book reviews and articles, Bishop never lets out such clear expressions against the Jews, keeping the criticisms of Jews rather vague and general. In the past, Bishop has admitted his admiration and sympathy for National Socialist Germany, and his enthusiastic applause for Ernst Zuendel's proclamation of being a Nazi (see pages 3-4 of link).

Bishop is just another Nazi idealogue, using Holocaust 'revisionism' to further his agenda, although doing so very poorly as this blog has shown.*

*Bishop has been made aware of all criticisms expressed on this blog, but failed to respond to any of them. So much for open debate, eh?

8 comments:

I've never really been clear on how Bradley Smith maintains this strange double-think where he is so insistent on denying the Holocaust, claiming that there is a vast international conspiracy devoted to falsifying the historical era, and yet he seems to present himself as so opposed to antisemitism.

He's been maintaining this position for decades, how does he do it? Does he ever falter?

Not to my knowledge. When I was a revisionist and had the opportunity to engage privately with Smith, he always kept the same approach. I did not detect any signs of antisemitism.

Smith, though, isn't very involved in revisionism, but merely makes noise about the free-speech issue. It's almost a certainty that if there was no perceived "dogma" surrounding the Holocaust, he would not take part with revisionists.

Smith just seems to love creating controversy. Perhaps that is the failed writer coming out, unable to make a name for himself through his works, so he turns his attention elsewhere. Who knows.

I do think Smith might be one of the most reasonable revisionists. His circle of associates, however, go against almost everything he supposedly stands for. The CODOH forum prohibits real open debate, his CODOH authors engage in antisemitism, etc...

It takes an extreme level of cognitive dissonance on Bradley's part to write this sentence:

"He is one of those revisionists who, while they understand that the gas-chamber stories are a historical fraud, feel a nostalgic loss over the fact that Hitler did not do, or even want to do, what he is accused of doing."

So Bradley denies not just Hitler's acts but his intentions; yet he talks to neo-Nazis who share those same intentions that he denies in Hitler.

Moreover, we know, and Bradley must know, that many neo-Nazis embrace the genocide and applaud it.

Bradley must thus believe that Hitler's own modern-day supporters have misread Hitler's intentions, and have admired him based on a false premise.

As I am quiet new in Jewish, looking around for some Jewish information> Got something important here. Nice to get it. Have you seen this video http://goo.gl/DT6FN It helped me get over my internal anger.